Members only
The underlying logic for cascading is based on the idea that everyone will do as they are told, say the same thing as the process moves forward, and naturally bridge from concept to context as appropriate. But there are many ways that cascades can become corrupted - to the extent they deliver messages that contradict the original meaning.
Here are some of the types of cascading fails that occur
a) Non-participation
A manager is given a cascade pack, and simply does not present and share the materials with their teams.
b) Non-facilitation
The manager emails the materials to team members without context or explanation.
c) Partial penetration
The manager presents and shares the materials partially or even selectively.
d) Selective emphasis
The manager delivers the cascade as written - but adds their own prioritization by emphasizing certain content or showing high or low interest in certain content through tone of voice, facial expressions or going through content at variable speed.
e) Selective presentation
The manager removes parts of the presentation they consider unimportant, or perhaps contradictory to their own agenda or KPIs, or adds unofficial commentary which could conflict with the thrust of the cascade.
f) Lack of contextualisation
The manager does not add context to ensure the messages can be implemented at the local level
g) Biased contextualisation
The manager adds context to translate the messages to the local level but adds his / her bias, so skewing the meaning which may help or hinder implementation
h) Affiliation conflict
When the manager sees the messages will be unpopular, they seek to gain affiliation and buy-in from the team by identifying with the reasons for this unpopularity ("I know this is crazy, but we've got to follow this…") at the cost of showing loyalty to those designing the message content, and therefore the brand they represent.
A secondary purpose of cascading - reinforcement of the manager's relative importance in the hierarchy - can backfire when that manager practices any of the above cascading failures. Rather than adding authority, these failures subvert the official message, confuse and disengage staff, and undermine the organization's credibility to their teams.
Cascading has diminished in importance in some organizations in place of digital or other methods of communicating directly with employees, such as simple team alignment routines or deeper employee alignment processes like Mirror Mirror.
For more on this topic, download the mini-ebook 'Sabotaging Alignment'
